Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010282942025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./4093/2025 ASHOK CHANDRA MITRA @ ASHOK MITRA SON OF LATE FHANINDR AMITRA @ LATE PHANINDRA MITRA RESIDENT OF HAILAKANDI, WARD NO. 4, P.S. HAILAKANDI, DIST. HAILAKANDI, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP. BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A CHAUDHURY, MR. D BORA,MR. N MAHAJAN,MR. P K DAS Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANJAL DAS ORDER Date : 07.01.2026 Heard Mr. A. Chaudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. D.P.Goswami, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, for the State respondent. 2. The petitioner Ashok Chandra Mitra @ Ashok Mitra has filed this Page No.# 2/3 application under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 with a prayer for bail as he is behind bars since 03.12.2025 in connection with Hailakandi P.S. Case No. 173/2025 under Sections 318(4)/316(2)/3(5) of BNS, 2023. 3. Two persons as informants had submitted an FIR dated 03.12.2025. The gist of the allegations is that they are consumers of ASCARD Bank and after opening their account, they have been depositing their money in the bank. The present petitioner is stated to be the Manager of the said bank, and money has been collected through various agents. Subsequently, they could not provide matured amounts and thereafter, they started avoiding the informants. It is further alleged that on 03.12.2025, in the afternoon, upon finding the present petitioner in the bazaar, he was asked about the money but he started giving excuses, whereupon he was handed over to the police. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was indeed the Manager of the said bank, which had gone into liquidation issue, and with regard to which newspaper notice was also given in vernacular. The copy of the same has been annexed with the bail petition. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that he is not involved in collecting any money after the liquidation of the bank. The learned Counsel has also drawn the attention of the Court to the relevant annexed documents and submitted that the grounds of arrest do not meet the stipulations under Section 35 (3) of BNSS. 5. Case diary has been received. 6. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that in view of statement of some witnesses who have stated about their suspicion that the Manager may be involved in collecting money through the agents even after closure of the bank. 7. As already stated above, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted Page No.# 3/3 that the Manager denies his involvement in collecting money after the closure of the bank and if an agent had done so, he is not aware of the same. 8. In the given facts and circumstances and also keeping in mind the length of detention, I am of the considered view that the petitioner can be given bail. 9. In view of the above, the accused petitioner named above is hereby allowed to go on bail of Rs.30,000/- with one surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the learned CJM, Hailakandi subject to the following conditions: 1. The petitioner shall co-operate with the remaining part of investigation, 2. The petitioner shall not hamper or tamper with the evidence in any manner. 10. On violation of any of the above conditions, the learned court below is at liberty to cancel bail granted to the petitioner. 11. The bail application stands disposed of. 12. Send back the Case Diary. JUDGE Comparing Assistant